I think if we're assuming that fetuses are morally valuable persons who nevertheless lack minds, a zombie, or person temporarily in a zombie state, would actually be an equivalent.
I have two problems with the debunking argument firstly it seems that if deeply engrained patriarchal assumptions are the main explanation for differences in intuitions between the two cases then we should expect women to generally be less affected, because these norms go directly against their self-interest but positions on abortion are roughly evenly split across genders.
Religion not gender is the largest predictor of a person's views on abortion, race is a better predictor than gender for goodness sake.
Secondly counties like Japan and China are not notably less patriarchal than western countries but abortion has been legal in Japan since the 1940s and in China since the 1950s.
I think a better explanation is the influence of Christianity and the spread of natural law theory. Somewhere deep in the collective unconscious of the West is a voice saying "Aha — a birth canal I know what that's for", so it's not just sexism, it's sexism mixed with holdovers from questionable religious metaphysics.
The fact women sometimes support pro-life policies is not enough to show those aren't fundamentally anti-woman policies. Across the political spectrum, groups often act against their own interests en masse. For instance, if you're a conservative Black person, you probably think most Black people are voting against their interests when they vote for Democrats. If you're a strong leftist, you probably think rural white people are en masse voting against their interest when they vote for Republicans. So this objection holds little weight. Regardless of your political view, you probably agree that groups routinely do act against their own interests due to ideological pressures.
Further, the fact patriarchy does not uniformly condemn abortion does not mean anti-abortion policies aren't patriarchal. Patriarchal norms can be informed and influenced by local cultural beliefs (ie, the belief in ensoulment at conception) and that might lead to certain expressions of patriarchy emerging in some cultures but not others.
> Of course, feminists appeal to the belief that women should have the same general bodily autonomy rights that men are (usually uncontroversially) assumed to have.
Why would anyone find this convincing? It's like saying hitting someone with a hammer should be treated the same as hitting someone with a pillow because both require a swinging motion. If men were killing their unborn children I'm sure it would be controversial as well. Utterly bizzare way to end a somewhat coherent article.
Broadly agree, though I wonder if the social standing of flesh-eating zombies might also be playing a role
I think if we're assuming that fetuses are morally valuable persons who nevertheless lack minds, a zombie, or person temporarily in a zombie state, would actually be an equivalent.
I have two problems with the debunking argument firstly it seems that if deeply engrained patriarchal assumptions are the main explanation for differences in intuitions between the two cases then we should expect women to generally be less affected, because these norms go directly against their self-interest but positions on abortion are roughly evenly split across genders.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/#views-on-abortion-by-gender-2022
Religion not gender is the largest predictor of a person's views on abortion, race is a better predictor than gender for goodness sake.
Secondly counties like Japan and China are not notably less patriarchal than western countries but abortion has been legal in Japan since the 1940s and in China since the 1950s.
I think a better explanation is the influence of Christianity and the spread of natural law theory. Somewhere deep in the collective unconscious of the West is a voice saying "Aha — a birth canal I know what that's for", so it's not just sexism, it's sexism mixed with holdovers from questionable religious metaphysics.
The fact women sometimes support pro-life policies is not enough to show those aren't fundamentally anti-woman policies. Across the political spectrum, groups often act against their own interests en masse. For instance, if you're a conservative Black person, you probably think most Black people are voting against their interests when they vote for Democrats. If you're a strong leftist, you probably think rural white people are en masse voting against their interest when they vote for Republicans. So this objection holds little weight. Regardless of your political view, you probably agree that groups routinely do act against their own interests due to ideological pressures.
Further, the fact patriarchy does not uniformly condemn abortion does not mean anti-abortion policies aren't patriarchal. Patriarchal norms can be informed and influenced by local cultural beliefs (ie, the belief in ensoulment at conception) and that might lead to certain expressions of patriarchy emerging in some cultures but not others.
> Of course, feminists appeal to the belief that women should have the same general bodily autonomy rights that men are (usually uncontroversially) assumed to have.
Why would anyone find this convincing? It's like saying hitting someone with a hammer should be treated the same as hitting someone with a pillow because both require a swinging motion. If men were killing their unborn children I'm sure it would be controversial as well. Utterly bizzare way to end a somewhat coherent article.